Talk:StoneToss/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Alalch E. (talk · contribs) 15:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

You know what, I'll risk it. This will be my next review for the October drive. Lazman321 (talk) 16:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

The easiest criterion to meet. There is indeed a list of references that follows the relevant guidelines at MOS:REFERENCES. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2b - Reliable sources

I am concerned about using The Daily Dot, Boing Boing, and Mashable in this article given how they are only considered marginally reliable on WP:RSP and how controversial the topic is. I'm fine with using The Daily Dot for verifying when the webcomic started, but otherwise, I recommend finding more high-quality sources or otherwise removing the information, particularly contentious information, supported by these sources. Lazman321 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having just finished the source check, a lot of the information supported by these sources are in the high-quality sources already cited. As such, I'm more convinced than before that should, for the most part, be replaced. The Daily Dot, however, might be worth keeping given that it does have new information that isn't really controversial such as the community bans on Reddit and Discord. Lazman321 (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2c - No original research

Reviewing... - Source check here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, finished. I did notice a few things that need addressed but nothing too crazy. Lazman321 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2d - No copyright violations

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

3b - Focused

4 - Neutral

5 - Stable

Given that much of what is contentious in this article has been solidified by consensus on the talk page, any reasonable content dispute that this article has had has been resolved. Current attempts at challenging this consensus have been quickly quashed, and no discussion on the talk page has been active since August. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

The one image included in this article is the logo, which has a valid public domain tag. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6b - Relevant media

The logo is certainly relevant to the article. Perhaps you could include a comic to illustrate StoneToss's Neo-Nazi ideology, but I won't require it. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]